[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 26 (Friday, February 12, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1644-S1649]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 426. A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, to 
provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and 
the Huna Totem Corporation, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources.


       Kake Tribal Corporation Public Interest Land Exchange Act

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce two similar 
bills both of which passed the Senate last year with unanimous consent. 
One of these bills amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
(ANCSA), to provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of 
Agriculture and the Huna Totem Corporation, a village corporation 
created under that Act. The other bill provides for a similar land 
exchange between the Secretary and the Kake Tribal Corporation. Both of 
these bills will allow the Kake Tribal and Huna Totem Corporations to 
convey land needed as municipal watersheds in their surrounding 
communities to the Secretary in exchange for other Forest Service 
lands.
  Enactment of these bills will meet two objectives. First, the two 
corporations will finally be able to fully recognize the economic 
benefits promised to them under ANCSA. Second, the watersheds that 
supply the communities of Hoonah, Alaska and Kake, Alaska will be 
protected in order to provide safe water for those communities.
  The legislation I offer today clarifies several issues that were 
raised during the Committee hearings and mark-up last year. First, the 
legislation directs that the subsurface estates owned by Sealaska 
Corporation in the Huna and Kake exchange lands are exchanged for 
similar subsurface estates in the conveyed Forest Service lands. Second 
the substitute clarifies that these exchanges are to be done on an 
equal value basis. Both the Secretary of Agriculture and the 
corporations insisted on this provision. I believe this is critical, 
Mr. President, because both these bills provide that any timber derived 
from the newly acquired Corporation lands be processed in-state, a 
requirement that does not currently exist on the watershed lands the 
corporations are exchanging. Therefore, if this exchange simply were 
done on an acre-for-acre basis it is likely that the acreage the 
corporations are exchanging, without any timber export restrictions, 
would have a much higher value than what they would get in return. It 
is for this reason that these exchanges will not be done on an acre-
for-acre basis. If it ends up that either party has to receive 
additional compensation, either in additional lands or in cash to 
equalize the value, then it is my hope this will be done in an 
expeditious way to allow the exchange to move forward within the times 
specified in the legislation.
  I believe these two pieces of legislation are in the best interest of 
the native corporations, the Alaska communities where the watersheds 
are located, and the Federal government. It is my intention to try and 
pass these bills out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 426

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Kake Tribal Corporation 
     Public Interest Land Exchange Act.''

     SEC. 2 AMENDMENT OF SETTLEMENT ACT.

       The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 92-203, 
     December 18, 1971, 85 Stat. 688, 43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), as 
     amended, is further amended by adding at the end thereof:

     ``SEC.  . KAKE TRIBAL CORPORATION LAND EXCHANGE.

       ``(a) General.--In exchange for lands and interests therein 
     described in subsection (b), the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall, subject to valid existing rights convey to the Kake 
     Tribal Corporation the surface estate and to Sealaska 
     Corporation the subsurface estate of the Federal land 
     identified by Kake Tribal Corporation pursuant to subsection 
     (c): Lands exchanged pursuant to this section shall be on the 
     basis of equal value.
       ``(b) The surface estate to be conveyed by Kake Tribal 
     Corporation and the subsurface estate to be conveyed by 
     Sealaska Corporation to the Secretary of Agriculture are the 
     municipal watershed lands as shown on the map dated September 
     1, 1997, and labeled Attachment A, and are further described 
     as follows:

         MUNICIPAL WATERSHED, COPPER RIVER MERIDIAN, T56S, R72E
 
                                                                Approx-
                           Section                               imate
                                                                 acres
 
13...........................................................         82
23...........................................................        118
24...........................................................        635
25...........................................................        640
26...........................................................        346
34...........................................................          9
35...........................................................        349
36...........................................................        248
                                                              ----------
  Approximate total..........................................      2,427
 

       ``(c) Within ninety (90) days of the receipt by the United 
     States of the conveyances of the surface estate and the 
     subsurface estate described in subsection (b), Kake Tribal 
     Corporation shall be entitled to identify lands in the 
     Hamilton Bay and Saginaw Bay areas, as depicted on the maps 
     dated September 1, 1997, and labeled Attachments B and C. 
     Kake Tribal Corporation shall notify the Secretary of 
     Agriculture in writing which lands Kake Tribal Corporation 
     has identified.
       ``(d) Timing of Conveyance and Valuation.--The conveyance 
     mandated by subsection (a) by the Secretary of Agriculture 
     shall occur within ninety (90) days after the list of 
     identified lands is submitted by Kake Tribal Corporation 
     pursuant to subsection (c).
       ``(e) Management of Watershed.--The Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with 
     the City of

[[Page S1645]]

     Kake, Alaska, to provide for management of the municipal 
     watershed.
       ``(f) Timber Manufacturing; Export Restriction.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, timber harvested 
     from land conveyed to Kake Tribal Corporation under this 
     section shall not be exported as unprocessed logs from 
     Alaska, nor may Kake Tribal Corporation sell, trade, 
     exchange, substitute, or otherwise convey that timber to any 
     person for the purpose of exporting that timber from the 
     State of Alaska.
       ``(g) Relation to Other Requirements.--The land conveyed to 
     Kake Tribal Corporation and Sealaska Corporation under this 
     section shall be considered, for all purposes, land conveyed 
     under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
       ``(h) Maps.--The maps referred to in this section shall be 
     maintained on file in the Office of the Chief, United States 
     Forest Service, and in the Office of the Secretary of the 
     Interior, Washington, D.C. The acreage cited in this section 
     is approximate, and if there is any discrepancy between cited 
     acreage and the land depicted on the specified maps, the maps 
     shall control. The maps do not constitute an attempt by the 
     United States to convey State or private land.''
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. ABRAHAM (for himself, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Thompson, Mr. 
        Lott, Mr. Allard, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. 
        Cochran, Mr. Burns, Mr. McCain, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
        Bond, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
        Nickles):
  S. 427. A bill to improve congressional deliberation on proposed 
Federal private sector mandates, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Budget and the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
jointly, pursuant to the order of August 4, 1997, with instructions 
that if one Committee reports, the other Committee have thirty days to 
report or be discharged.


                  the mandates information act of 1999

  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today with 14 of my Colleagues, 
including the Chairmen of the Senate Small Business, Commerce, 
Government Affairs and Budget Committees, as well as the Majority 
Leader, in introducing vital legislation in protecting our nation's 
businesses from ill-thought government mandates, The Mandates 
Information Act of 1999. This bill in my view furthers the cause of 
careful deliberation in this, the greatest deliberative body in the 
world. It will force Members of Congress to carefully consider all 
aspects of potential legislation containing mandates affecting 
consumers, workers, and small businesses.
  We have been working towards final passage of this bill for quite 
some time, Mr. President, as we introduced very similar legislation in 
the last Congress. I wish to thank Chairmen Thompson and Domenici for 
their tireless leadership in shepherding this through their two 
Committees last Congress. I am only sorry we did not have sufficient 
time to bring it to the floor before adjournment. With their support 
and leadership in this Congress, I believe we can bring it to the floor 
for quick consideration and move to Conference with the House.
  And too it is the House that I also wish to extend my thanks and 
respect. Under the careful leadership of Representatives Portman and 
Condit, and the very helpful support of the Speaker, the House version 
of the Mandates Information Act, H.R. 350, easily passed the House on 
Wednesday with a broad, bipartisan majority of 274 to 194. Their 
conscientious sponsorship of the bill allowed it to quickly pass 
through Committee, and to avoid being watered down by unneeded 
amendments. I offer my thanks and respect for their efforts.
  Mr. President, this is not a new idea, but one that builds upon the 
important work of the 104th Congress when we passed the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. That legislation required the 
Congressional Budget Office to make two key estimates with respect to 
any bill reported out of committee: First, whether the bill contains 
intergovernmental mandates with an annual cost of $50 million or more; 
and, second, whether the bill contains private sector mandates with an 
annual cost of $100 million or more. The 1995 act also established a 
point of order against bills meeting the $50 million cost threshold for 
intergovernmental mandates. Although the point of order can be waived 
by a simple majority vote, it encourages Congress to think carefully 
before imposing new intergovernmental mandates.
  The 1995 act did not apply its point of order to private sector 
mandates. This was understandable, given the bill's focus on 
intergovernmental mandates. But States and localities are not alone in 
being affected by Federal mandates. Consumers, workers, and small 
businesses also are affected when the Federal Government passes along 
the costs of its policies. This is why the Mandates Information Act of 
1997 will apply a point of order to bills meeting the $100 million cost 
threshold for private sector mandates, while also directing the CBO to 
prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for 
any bill reported out of committee.
  These reforms are necessary in my view, Mr. President, because the 
1995 Act, while effective in its chosen sphere of intergovernmental 
mandates, does not contain the necessary mechanisms to force Congress 
to think seriously about the wisdom of proposed mandates on the private 
sector. This leaves our private sector faced with the same dilemma once 
faced by our States and localities: Congress does not give full 
consideration to the costs its mandates impose. Focusing almost 
exclusively on the benefits of unfunded mandates, Congress pays little 
heed to, and sometimes seems unaware of, the burden that unfunded 
mandates impose on the very groups they are supposed to help.
  Unfunded mandate costs by definition do not show up on Congress' 
balance ledger. But, as President Clinton's Deputy Treasury Secretary 
Lawrence Summers has written, ``[t]here is no sense in which benefits 
become `free' just because the government mandates'' them. Congress has 
merely passed the costs on to someone else.
  And that ``someone'' is the American people. As economists from 
Princeton's Alan Krueger to John Holohan, Colin Winterbottom, and 
Sheila Zedlewski of the Urban Institute agree, the costs of unfunded 
mandates on the private sector are primarily borne by three groups: 
consumers, workers, and small businesses.
  What forms do these costs take? For consumers, mandate costs take the 
form of higher prices for goods and services, as unfunded mandates 
drive up the cost of labor.
  For workers, the costs of unfunded mandates often take the form of 
significantly lower wages. According to the Heritage Foundation, a 
range of independent studies indicates that some 88 percent of the cost 
of private sector mandates are shifted to workers in the form of lower 
wages.
  And mandates can cause workers to lose their jobs altogether. Faced 
with uncontrollable increases in employee costs, our job creators too 
often find that they can no longer afford to retain their full 
complement of workers. The Clinton health care mandate, for example, 
would have resulted in a net loss of between 200,000-500,000 jobs, 
according to a study conducted by Professor Krueger.
  Small businesses and their potential employees also suffer. Mandates 
typically apply only to businesses with at least a certain number of 
employees. As a result, small businesses have a powerful incentive not 
to hire enough new workers to reach the mandate threshold. As the Wall 
Street Journal recently noted, ``The point at which a new [mandate] 
kicks in * * * is the point at which the [Chief Financial Officer] asks 
`Why grow?' ''
  That question is asked by small businesses all over the country, but 
let me cite one example from my State. Hasselbring/Clark is an office 
equipment supplier in Lansing, MI. Noelle Clark is the firm's treasurer 
and secretary. Mindful of the raft of mandates whose threshold is 50 
employees, Ms. Clark reports that lately ``we have hired a few temps to 
stay under 49.'' Thus, unfunded mandates not only eliminate jobs, but 
also prevent jobs from being created.

  Much as Members of Congress may wish it were not so, mandates have a 
very real cost. This does not mean that all mandates are bad. But it 
does mean that Congress should think very carefully about the wisdom of 
a proposed mandate before imposing it.
  Such careful thinking, Mr. President, is the goal of the Mandates 
Information Act of 1999. Just as the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 protects State and local governments from hasty decisionmaking 
with respect to proposed intergovernmental mandates,

[[Page S1646]]

the Mandates Information Act would protect consumers, workers, and 
small businesses from hasty decisionmaking with respect to proposed 
private sector mandates. It would do so, in essence, by extending the 
reforms of the 1995 act to private sector mandates.
  The bill I introduce today would build on the 1995 act's reforms in 
two ways. First, to give Congress more complete information about the 
impact of proposed mandates on the private sector, my bill directs CBO 
to prepare a ``Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' 
for any bill reported out of Committee. This statement would include 
analyses of the bill's private sector mandates' effects on the 
following: First, consumer prices and [the] actual supply of goods and 
services in consumer markets; second, worker wages, worker benefits, 
and employment opportunities; and third, the hiring practices, 
expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
  But providing Congress with more complete information about the 
impact of proposed private sector mandates will not guarantee that it 
pays any attention to it. This we know from experience. In 1981, 
Congress enacted the State and Local Government Cost Estimate Act, 
sponsored by Senator Sasser. Pursuant to that act, CBO provided 
Congress with estimates of the cost of intergovernmental mandates in 
bills reported out of committee. But Congress routinely ignored this 
information. It did so because the 1981 act had no enforcement 
mechanism to force Congress to consider the CBO estimates. As Senator 
Sasser himself explained in introducing a follow-up bill in 1993, 
``[t]he problem [with the 1981 act], it has become clear, is that this 
yellow caution light has no red light to back it up.''
  To supply that ``red light,'' Senator Sasser's Mandate Funding Act of 
1993 contained a point of order. Of course, the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 likewise contained a point of order, which is why it 
succeeded where Senator Sasser's 1981 act had failed.
  The Mandates Information Act of 1999 will provide this red light for 
proposed private sector mandates. It contains a point of order against 
any bill whose direct private sector mandates exceed the $100 million 
threshold set by the 1995 act. Like the 1995 act's point of order 
against intergovernmental mandates, the 1997 bill's point of order can 
be waived by a simple majority of Members. Thus it will not stop 
Congress from passing bills it wants to pass. It is here, Mr. 
President, that I wish to thank Chairman Thompson and Domenici for the 
excellent revisions of the mandates language offered during the 
Government Affairs mark-up of the Mandates Information Act of 1997. We 
have incorporated those changes in this bill and believe they greatly 
strengthen the legislation, including making it very clear that the 
point of order only applies to direct mandates upon the private sector 
that exceed $100 million.

  It is that point of order which will serve the vital purpose to 
ensure Congress does not ignore the information contained in the 
Consumer, Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement. It will do so by 
allowing any Member to focus the attention of the entire House or 
Senate on the impact statement for a particular bill.
  The Mandates Information Act of 1999 will provide Congress with more 
complete information about proposed mandates' effects on consumers, 
workers, and small businesses. It will also ensure that Congress 
actually considers this information before reaching a judgment about 
whether to impose a new mandate. The result, Mr. President, will be 
focused, high-quality deliberation on the wisdom of private sector 
mandates.
  Because of the success of the 1995 act, Congress is now much more 
careful to consider the interests of State and local governments in 
making decisions about unfunded mandates. But Congress must be just as 
careful to consider the interests of consumers, workers, and small 
businesses in making such decisions. This bill will ensure that care, 
helping produce better legislation; legislation that imposes a lighter 
burden on working Americans.
  Mr. President, I will include in the Record the following sample of 
letters from small business groups supporting the bill along with a 
list of groups that have expressed their support for it.
  Mr. President, the support for this legislation is broad and deep. It 
is needed to protect our small businesses against mandates which have 
not been fully analyzed and which harm these businesses in ways that 
Congress may never have intended. But, Mr. President, I believe they 
can best argue for the need for this bill.
  Therefore, I call on my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this 
important legislation, and to move it through Committee and to the 
floor as quickly as possible. It is necessary, it is wise, and it is 
fair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the 
legislation as well as a section-by-section summary of the bill, a list 
of groups in support of the bill, letters of support from the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce, the Small Business Survival Committee and the 
Competitive Enterprise Institute also be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 427

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mandates Information Act of 
     1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds that--
       (1) before acting on proposed private sector mandates, 
     Congress should carefully consider their effects on 
     consumers, workers, and small businesses;
       (2) Congress has often acted without adequate information 
     concerning the costs of private sector mandates, instead 
     focusing only on their benefits;
       (3) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in 
     part by consumers, in the form of higher prices and reduced 
     availability of goods and services;
       (4) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in 
     part by workers, in the form of lower wages, reduced 
     benefits, and fewer job opportunities; and
       (5) the costs of private sector mandates are often borne in 
     part by small businesses, in the form of hiring disincentives 
     and stunted growth.

     SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

       The purposes of this Act are--
       (1) to improve the quality of Congress's deliberation with 
     respect to proposed mandates on the private sector, by--
       (A) providing Congress with more complete information about 
     the effects of such mandates; and
       (B) ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after 
     focused deliberation on their effects; and
       (2) to enhance the ability of Congress to distinguish 
     between private sector mandates that harm consumers, workers, 
     and small businesses, and mandates that help those groups.

     SEC. 4. FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Estimates.--Section 424(b) of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(4) Estimate of indirect impacts.--
       ``(A) In general.--In preparing estimates under paragraph 
     (1), the Director shall also estimate, if feasible, the 
     impact (including any disproportionate impact in particular 
     regions or industries) on consumers, workers, and small 
     businesses, of the Federal private sector mandates in the 
     bill or joint resolution, including--
       ``(i) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private 
     sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on consumer 
     prices and on the actual supply of goods and services in 
     consumer markets;
       ``(ii) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private 
     sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on worker 
     wages, worker benefits, and employment opportunities; and
       ``(iii) an analysis of the effect of the Federal private 
     sector mandates in the bill or joint resolution on the hiring 
     practices, expansion, and profitability of businesses with 
     100 or fewer employees.
       ``(B) Estimate not considered in determination.--The 
     estimate prepared under this paragraph shall not be 
     considered in determining whether the direct costs of all 
     Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution will exceed the threshold specified in paragraph 
     (1).''.
       (2) Point of order.--Section 424(b)(3) of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658c(b)(3)) is amended by adding 
     after the period ``If such determination is made by the 
     Director, a point of order under this part shall lie only 
     under section 425(a)(1) and as if the requirement of section 
     425(a)(1) had not been met.''.
       (3) Threshold amounts.--Section 425(a)(2) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 658d(a)(2)) is 
     amended by striking ``Federal intergovernmental mandates by 
     an amount that causes the thresholds specified in section 
     424(a)(1)'' and inserting ``Federal mandates by an amount 
     that causes the thresholds specified in section 424 (a)(1) or 
     (b)(1)''.

[[Page S1647]]

       (4) Application relating to appropriations committees.--
     Section 425(c)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     (2 U.S.C. 658d(c)(1)(B)) is amended--
       (A) in clause (i) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
       (B) in clause (ii) by striking ``intergovernmental'';
       (C) in clause (iii) by striking ``intergovernmental''; and
       (D) in clause (iv) by striking ``intergovernmental''.
       (5) Application relating to congressional budget office.--
     Section 427 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. 
     658f) is amended by striking ``intergovernmental''.
       (b) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers.--This section is enacted 
     by Congress--
       (1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and the House of Representatives, respectively, and as such 
     they shall be considered as part of the rules of such House, 
     respectively, and such rules shall supersede other rules only 
     to the extent that they are inconsistent therewith; and
       (2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of 
     either House to change such rules (so far as relating to such 
     House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same 
     extent as in the case of any other rule of each House.
                                  ____


                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                         SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mandates Information Act of 
     1999.''


                            SEC. 2. FINDINGS

       Finds that Congress should consider the effects of proposed 
     mandates on consumers, workers and small businesses, and that 
     Congress has often acted on mandates while knowing their 
     benefits but not their costs.


                            SEC. 3. PURPOSES

       The purposes of this Act are:
       To improve the quality of Congress' deliberation on 
     proposed private sector mandates by providing Congress with 
     more complete information;
       Ensuring that Congress acts on such mandates only after 
     focused deliberation on their effects; and
       To enhance the ability of Congress to distinguish between 
     helpful and harmful private sector mandates.


                SEC. 4. FEDERAL PRIVATE SECTOR MANDATES

       (a) In General--
       (1) Estimates--Directs the Congressional Budget Office, if 
     feasible, to estimate the impact of private sector mandates 
     on consumers, workers, and small businesses, including the 
     impact on--
       Consumer prices and the supply of goods and services;
       Worker wages, benefits, and employment opportunities; and
       The hiring practices, expansion and profitability of 
     businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
       The estimate prepared under this paragraph shall not be 
     considered in determining whether the direct costs of all 
     Federal private sector mandates in the bill or joint 
     resolution exceed the $100 million threshold.
        (2) Point of Order--Provides that if the Congressional 
     Budget Office is unable to estimate the cost of private 
     sector mandates in a bill or joint resolution, a point of 
     order will still lie against consideration of that bill or 
     joint resolution.
        (3) Threshold Amounts--Exempts funded private sector 
     mandates from a point of order.
       (4) Application to Appropriations--Extends the point of 
     order only to appropriations bills only if a legislative 
     provision that includes a Federal private sector mandate is:
       Contained in an appropriations bill or conference report; 
     or
       Contained in an amendment to an appropriations bill; or
       Amendments in disagreement between the two Houses to an 
     appropriations bill.
        (5) Amendments--Requires the Congressional Budget Office, 
     when practicable, to estimate the direct costs of a Federal 
     private sector mandate contained in an amendment at the 
     request of any Senator.
        (b) Exercise of Rulemaking Powers--States that the Act is 
     enacted as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the Senate 
     and House of Representatives under their constitutional right 
     to change such rules at any time.
                                  ____


     Organizations Supporting the Mandates Information Act of 1999


                         NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

        The United States Chamber of Commerce, National Federation 
     of Independent Business, National Association for the Self-
     Employed, National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, 
     National Retail Federation, Small Business Survival 
     Committee, Associated Builders and Contractors, American Farm 
     Bureau Federation, National Association of Manufacturers, 
     National Association of Home Builders, National Restaurant 
     Association, National Roofing Contractors Association, 
     Citizens for a Sound Economy, Heritage Foundation, 
     Competitive Enterprise Institute


                         MICHIGAN ORGANIZATIONS

        Associated Underground Contractors, Inc.; Grand Rapids 
     Area Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Association of Timbermen; 
     Michigan Chamber of Commerce; Michigan Farm Bureau Family of 
     Companies; Michigan NFIB; Michigan Retailers Association; 
     Michigan Soft Drink Association; Small Business Association 
     of Michigan.
                                  ____

                                              Charmber of Commerce


                                 The United States of America,

                                Washington, D.C. February 9, 1999.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: As long standing advocates of 
     mandates relief for the private and public sectors, the U.S. 
     Chamber of Commerce strongly supports the legislation that 
     you will be introducing, The Mandates Information Act of 
     1999.
       Recent studies estimate the compliance costs of federal 
     regulations at more than $700 billion annually and project 
     substantial future growth even without the enactment of new 
     legislation. Congressional mandates impose significant costs 
     on the private sector, particularly small business. These 
     costs are passed along in the form of higher prices and 
     taxes, reduced wages, stunted economic growth, and decreased 
     technological innovation.
       The Mandates Information Act builds upon the success of the 
     Unfunded Mandates Reform Act by requiring the Congressional 
     Budget Office (``CBO'') to provide Congress with information 
     on the potential impacts associated with proposed significant 
     mandates on the private sector. This legislation promotes 
     better decision making and greater accountability by 
     providing Congress with information relating to the costs and 
     impacts of its mandates before enacting them and passing the 
     costs on to consumers. It also allows a separate debate and 
     floor vote.
       During the last Congress, H.R. 3534, the Mandates 
     Information Act, was passed by the U.S. House of 
     Representatives by a vote of 279-132. Additionally, the 
     analogous bill in the Senate was marked up and approved by 
     the Government Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, the 105th 
     Congress ended before the Senate could vote on the 
     legislation.
       Lawmakers have the responsibility to legislate using the 
     most complete and accurate information available. The point-
     of-order mechanism, coupled with CBO's analysis under the 
     Mandates Information Act, would help make Congress far more 
     responsive to the burdens created by ill-considered mandates.
       The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing more than three million businesses of 
     every size, sector, and region, appreciates your effort to 
     make Congress more accountable to small businesses, workers, 
     and consumers through the Mandates Information Act.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Lonnie P. Taylor,
     Senior Vice President.
                                  ____

                                                    Small Business


                                           Survival Committee,

                                 Washington, DC, January 27, 1999.
     Hon. Spencer Abraham
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Abraham: Any effort to highlight the burden of 
     private-sector mandates on small businesses, workers, and 
     consumers earns the support of the Small Business Survival 
     Committee's (SBSC's) 50,000 members.
       The Mandates Information Act of 1999 is an important piece 
     of legislation that would provide Congress with the ability 
     to determine the economic impact of mandates by directing the 
     Congressional Budget Office to supply Congress with an 
     analysis of a new mandate's impact on small businesses, 
     workers, and consumers.
       Small businesses bear a disproportionate burden of the 
     costs of federal regulations. The per employee costs of these 
     regulations are usually 80% higher for small businesses when 
     compared to that of large corporations. Ultimately, the costs 
     his employees hard, through lower wages, reduced benefits, 
     and fewer job opportunities and consumers are hurt by high 
     prices and reduced availability of goods and services.
       To draw attention to private-sector mandates with annual 
     costs in excess of $100 million, the Mandates Information Act 
     of 1999 allows any member to raise a ``point of order'' to 
     ensure the Members of Congress do not ignore the economic 
     impact imposed by their mandates on taxpayers. This provision 
     is an important step in favor of true congressional 
     accountability.
       The Small Business Survival Committee strongly support this 
     important piece of legislation and looks forward to working 
     with you to ensure its passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Karen Kerrigan,
     President.
                                  ____


       [From the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Feb. 8, 1999]

              So, What Will This Unfunded Mandate Cost Me?

                       (By Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.)

       The $1.77 trillion spending budget President Clinton sent 
     to Congress February 2 tells just part of the story of the 
     Federal government's reach in the economy. Regulatory 
     mandates placed on Americans increase the costs of government 
     by over a third. Legislation now being debated in the House 
     of Representatives (H.R. 350) could help better control that 
     cost.
       Some know the problems of mandates more acutely than 
     others. Back in 1995, governors and other state and local 
     officials--fed up with the federal government's imposing 
     exceedingly costly environmental and

[[Page S1648]]

     other mandates on them--revolted. To many state and local 
     officials, every dollar spent on federal priorities, however 
     beneficial and popular, compromised their ability to achieve 
     their own budget priorities. Some even felt they could 
     protect their own local environments without Washington's 
     intervention, thank you very much.
       Happy Governors.--The complaints that Washington too often 
     ignored the costs of its mandates were heard. The result was 
     the 104th Congress's Unfunded Mandates Act--the significance 
     of which garnered it the designation ``S. 1'' in the Senate. 
     The law required cost disclosure for significant mandates, 
     and offered an opportunity to demand explicit votes on the 
     intent to impose those costs.
       Unfunded public-sector mandates weren't halted by the 
     Unfunded Mandates Act, of course. But total rules in the 
     federal pipeline impacting state and local governments has 
     dipped 12 percent over the past five years, from 1,317 to 
     1,161.\1\ The real innovation wasn't rule blockage at all, 
     but rather increased congressional, rather than agency, 
     accountability to the public for the impacts of rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\All figures on numbers of regulations in this document 
     were compiled by CEI from the federal Regulatory Information 
     Service Center's ``Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations,'' 
     various years' editions, for the forthcoming CEI report ``Ten 
     Thousand Commandments: A Policymaker's Snapshot of the 
     Federal Regulatory State,'' 1999 edition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       But full congressional accountability and disclosure remain 
     to be achieved for rules impacting the private sector. For 
     example, agency rules significantly impacting small 
     businesses increased 37% over the past five years, from 686 
     to 937. Yet Congress remains largely free to ignore the 
     accompanying costs when enacting legislation that will impose 
     many private sector mandates. And if costs become an issue 
     down the line with constituents, its easy to blame the 
     regulatory agencies that write the rules to implement the 
     legislation.
       The Mandates Information Act (H.R. 350) vs. Those Other 
     Unfunded Mandates.--One remedy, on which House floor debate 
     will resume February 10, is the bipartisan Mandates 
     Information Act of 1999 (H.R. 350), sponsored by Reps. Gary 
     Condit (D-CA), Rob Portman (R-OH), Jim Moran (D-VA) and Tom 
     Davis (R-VA). Virtually identical to a version that passed 
     the 105th Congress on a 279-132 vote, the bill would extend 
     certain provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Act to mandates 
     on the private sector. H.R. 350 would establish a point of 
     order against any legislation that would impose costs over 
     $100 million annually, such as mandates impacting wages, 
     consumer prices or small businesses. If raised, the point of 
     order would halt further floor action unless members waive it 
     by a simple majority vote. In other words, should any member 
     object to the imposition of costs on the public, Congress 
     must then explicitly vote on its intent to consider the bill 
     despite its costs--and indirectly vote on its belief that 
     benefits outweigh costs. This approach doesn't necessarily 
     stop any mandate, but it would increase accountability.
       A Step Toward Ending Hidden Taxes?--Legislators partial to 
     continuing to shield mandate costs from scrutiny and wiggling 
     out of responsibility, do so at their peril. Off-budget 
     mandates now cost as much as $700 billion annually. That's an 
     amount about 40 percent the size of the entire federal 
     budget, greater even than pretax corporate profits ($640 
     billion in 1996) and almost as large as the combined GNPs of 
     Canada and Mexico ($542 billion and $237 billion in 1995).
       The Mandates Information Act would help place 
     responsibility for costly lawmaking squarely back where it 
     belongs--with Congress. Nonetheless, H.R. 350 has raised the 
     ire of some who say the measure will make it difficult to 
     promulgate regulation. What they do not fathom is that it is 
     not supposed to be easy to impulsively impose what amount to 
     massive hidden taxes. The opponents' alarm at the point of 
     order's ``gagging'' debate is quite misguided: If the simple 
     majority vote to approve worthy, presumably chock-full-of-
     benefits legislation is there in the first place, then the 
     simple majority to waive the point of order should be there, 
     too. Thus, opponents of H.R. 350's longoverdue focus on 
     costs, who cry ``What about benefits?'' need to ask 
     themselves that question. Voters aren't stupid, and they will 
     support costly legislation if persuaded those costs are 
     justified, and they will punish those whom they believe stall 
     needed legislation.
       Too Easy To Scapegoat Agencies.--Perhaps the real fear of 
     the Mandates Information Act's opponents is the fact that a 
     separate vote to explicitly consider costs weakens political 
     cover. Today, representatives can deny responsibility for 
     regulatory costs when speaking before their small business 
     constituents back home: ``Uh . . . Your hardship is the 
     agencies' fault! They're out of control!'' That little dodge 
     would stop.
       Congress Must Answer for All Costs.--Those who never met a 
     regulation they didn't like, those who always think more 
     rules make sense in the abstract, deserve occasionally to be 
     awakened from their perpetual Sim-City planner mode, just 
     long enough to consider whether a rule really makes sense 
     here on Earth. If even this meager reform is rejected, 
     Congress might just as well take a roll-call vote on a 
     resolution stipulating that: ``The public has no business 
     knowing the costs of the regulations that we impose upon 
     them.'' That way voters will have it made plain to them 
     exactly where they stand in the eyes of those they elected.
       The innovation and legacy of the Mandates Information Act 
     is not that it will stop a lot of regulations. It won't. The 
     Mandates Information Act's lasting contribution will be its 
     unique step toward full disclosure, its potential to make 
     Congress more answerable for all the costs of government.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to support the Mandates 
Information Act of 1999. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of 
this legislation, which will make Congress more accountable for the 
laws it passes. I want to applaud my good friend from Michigan, Spence 
Abraham, for his hard work and leadership on this effort. He has always 
championed greater accountability and efficiency in our Government.
  This legislation is based on a simple premise--that Congress should 
think carefully and be accountable for passing mandates that impose 
significant costs on people and limit their freedom. In 1995, we passed 
the Unfunded Mandates Act to make Congress think twice before imposing 
new unfunded mandates on state and local government. But Congress also 
should be concerned about the private sector, especially consumers, 
workers and small businesses.
  This legislation builds on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in two 
ways. First, it will provide Congress with more complete information 
about the costs of proposed Congressional mandates on the private 
sector. The Congressional Budget Office would prepare a ``Consumer, 
Worker, and Small Business Impact Statement'' for new private sector 
mandates in bills reported out of Committee. The Statement would 
analyze the impacts of Congressional mandates on: (1) consumer prices 
and the supply of goods and services in the market; (2) worker wages, 
benefits, and employment opportunities; and (3) the hiring practices, 
expansion, and profitability of businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
  Second, to ensure that Congress pays attention to the information, 
this legislation would establish a point of order, waivable by a simple 
majority, against legislation containing direct private sector unfunded 
mandates over the $100 million threshold established by the Unfunded 
Mandates Act. This bill does not prohibit legislative mandates; it 
simply requires Congress to think carefully before deciding whether or 
not to impose them.
  Mr. President, I believe that the public has a right to open, 
accountable, and efficient government. If Congress or the President 
wants to take credit for the benefits of a new program, we also should 
answer for its costs. We can't shrug off our responsibilities just 
because the economy is good now and we can point to budget surpluses. 
There has been a large growth in regulatory mandates that simply are 
not accounted for in budget figures. Federal regulation costs about 
$700 billion per year by some estimates. That is about 40 percent of 
the size of the entire Federal budget. And regulation begins when 
Congress passes legislation that delegates its lawmaking authority to 
the Federal agencies.
  The truth is that there is no free lunch. While we can see the costs 
of tax-and-spend programs in the taxes we pay, the costs of regulatory 
mandates are just as real. We all pay for regulatory mandates through 
hidden taxes in the form of higher prices, lower productivity and 
wages, and diminished economic growth and job opportunities.
  In particular, the costs of private sector mandates can hit hard on 
consumers, workers and small businesses. Consumers pay for mandates 
through higher prices for goods and services. Workers pay through lower 
wages. And small businesses pay through lower profitability and growth, 
which in turn means less job opportunities for workers. A 1995 Small 
Business Administration study found that an average business with less 
than 20 employees spends about $5,500 per employee to comply with 
Federal regulations, while large firms with over 500 employees spend 
about $3,000 per employee. While regulatory mandates affect everyone, 
small businesses have a particularly tough time shouldering them.
  I have always said that agencies need to regulate smarter. But before 
we even reach that step, Congress needs to legislate smarter. Last 
year, this legislation passed the House, and in the

[[Page S1649]]

Senate we reported it out of the Governmental Affairs Committee. On 
Wednesday, the House passed this legislation again by an overwhelming 
vote. It is my hope that we can enact it into law this year. The 
Mandates Information Act will help place responsibility for costly laws 
at their source--Congress. It's long overdue.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GORTON:
  S. 428. A bill to amend the Agricultural Market Transition Act to 
ensure that producers of all classes of soft white wheat (including 
club wheat) are permitted to repay marketing assistance loans, or 
receive loan deficiency payments, for the wheat at the same rate; to 
the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.


                 loan deficiency payment for club wheat

  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that 
will restore payment equity to Pacific Northwest producers of club 
wheat.
  Last year, during the middle of the 1998 harvest season, the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture made a rule change regarding the Loan 
Deficiency Payment (LDP) club wheat, a member of the soft white wheat 
subclass. While I applaud USDA for its efforts in providing equal 
payments for club wheat and soft white wheat, by making the policy 
change in the middle of the production year, many club wheat producers 
had already contracted with the lower payment.
  In order to address the inequity between the 1998 club wheat LDP 
contracts, my colleagues and I requested that USDA make the policy 
retroactive. USDA claimed it does not have the authority to grant 
retroactivity, and as a result, I have introduced this legislation to 
provide the agency retroactive authority.
  At a time when commodity prices are at an all time low, it is my hope 
that the LDP inequity for club wheat will be resolved by passage of 
this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the legislation be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 428

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REPAYMENT RATE FOR MARKETING ASSISTANCE LOANS FOR 
                   WHEAT; LOAN PAYMENT RATE FOR LOAN DEFICIENCY 
                   PAYMENTS FOR WHEAT.

       (a) In General.--Section 134(a)(2) of the Agricultural 
     Market Transition Act (7 U.S.C. 7234(a)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (D), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(E) in the case of soft white wheat, be uniform for all 
     classes of the wheat, including club wheat.''.
       (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply beginning with the 1997 crop of wheat.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Grams, 
        Mr. Daschle, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Levin):
  S. 429. A bill to designate the legal public holiday of 
``Washington's Birthday'' as ``Presidents' Day'' in honor of George 
Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt and in recognition 
of the importance of the institution of the Presidency and the 
contributions that Presidents have made to the development of our 
Nation and the principles of freedom and democracy; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary.


               THE REDESIGNATION OF WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity, along 
with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Kennedy, Cleland, Grams, 
Daschle, DeWine, Lautenberg, and Levin, to reintroduce legislation 
recognizing the importance of the institution of the Presidency. My 
legislation would redesignate ``Washington's Birthday'' as 
``Presidents' Day,'' honoring George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and 
Franklin Roosevelt. In taking this step, we would honor three of our 
nation's most important leaders, Presidents who led our nation through 
our greatest challenges and crises. In so doing, we would be 
celebrating the contributions that these and other great Presidents 
have made to the development of freedom and democracy in our great 
nation.
  Our democracy depends upon the participation of a well-informed 
electorate--citizens who take their civic responsibilities seriously. 
However, many Americans appear to have lost confidence in our political 
system. In the last presidential election, less than half of eligible 
voters--49 percent--voted. In the 1998 midterm elections, only 36 
percent of the voting populace cast their vote to determine the future 
of our nation. This was the lowest voter turnout since 1942, over 50 
years ago. The turnout rate among younger voters is even lower.
  Tests administered by the National Assessment of Educational Progress 
found that almost 60 percent of high school seniors lacked even a basic 
understanding of American history. These findings indicate that too 
many Americans feel a sense of alienation from the political process 
and do not believe that government and political involvement are 
relevant to their lives.
  In this time of cynicism about American politics, we must restore the 
faith and pride of our citizens in our government. Passage of this 
legislation will recognize three of our nation's greatest leaders and 
the enduring strength of the Office of the Presidency. It will remind 
all of us--but particularly young people who are our nation's future 
leaders--of the important contributions made by Presidents of the 
United States and the principles on which our nation was founded.

                          ____________________